CA affirms junking of libel rap vs Palafox | Inquirer News

CA affirms junking of libel rap vs Palafox

/ 09:56 PM March 11, 2013

CITY OF SAN FERNANDO—The Court of Appeals (CA) has affirmed two orders dismissing a libel case filed by six officials of the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) against architect and urban planner Felino Palafox Jr. in 2009.

The SBMA officials filed a libel complaint against Palafox after the architect claimed in the Philippine Daily Inquirer story that “an executive of the state-controlled SBMA had asked his firm for an 18-percent commission in exchange for the official getting them on the shortlist of bidders for a previous project updating the free port’s master development plan.”

Palafox gave this information while being interviewed for a story about his opposition to a plan by the SBMA to cut trees for a hotel project in the free port.

Article continues after this advertisement

The SBMA officials who sued Palafox for libel were Von Rodriguez, Ferdinand Hernandez, Ramon Agregado, Ruel John Kabigting, Marcelino Sanqui and Amethya dela Llana-Koval. They called Palafox’s claim to be “highly derogatory,” saying it was a “false accusation.”

FEATURED STORIES

The appellate court, in a decision on Feb. 20, affirmed the orders of the Olongapo regional trial court (RTC) because the SBMA officials did not join the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) in the libel suit.

“We stress that the omission was fatal and already enough cause for the summary dismissal of their (SBMA officials’) appeal,” said the CA in a decision penned by Associate Justice Rodil Zalameda. Presiding Justice Andres Reyes Jr. and Associate Justice Ramon Bato Jr. concurred.

Article continues after this advertisement

It called the noninvolvement of the OSG in the case as a “gross procedural misstep.”

Article continues after this advertisement

It said the SBMA officials violated Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987), which mandates the OSG to represent the government in the Supreme Court and CA in all criminal proceeding.

Article continues after this advertisement

“The people are the real party in interest in a criminal case and only the OSG can represent the people in criminal proceedings pending in this court or in the Supreme Court,” it said.

The SBMA officials, the decision said, did not get the consent of the OSG or furnished a copy of an appeal to the OSG when they questioned the Oct. 23, 2009 and Aug. 20, 2010 orders of Judge Richard Paradeza of the Olongapo RTC Branch 72.

Article continues after this advertisement

In May 2009, the city prosecutor found probable cause to charge Palafox with libel. Seeking to stop the serving of an arrest warrant, Palafox filed a motion for judicial determination of probable cause before Paradeza’s sala.

Paradeza dismissed the libel case for lack of probable cause. He also dismissed a motion for reconsideration. Tonette Orejas, Inquirer Central Luzon

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

TAGS: libel cases, News, Regions

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

© Copyright 1997-2024 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

This is an information message

We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more here.